Social Question

Dutchess_III's avatar

Does it make you uncomfortable when politicians make religion part of their public political life?

Asked by Dutchess_III (40367points) March 22nd, 2019

Pompeo suggests God sent Trump to save Israel.

It bothers me a good deal. What if they were Muslim and brought their religion to the forefront? Would anyone have a problem with that?`
What if they were Satan Worshipers, or Wiccins?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

160 Answers

JLeslie's avatar

Yes. When I moved to the South it was the first time I saw this in force. I first noticed it on TV commercials when candidates were running for office. I remember seeing an ad and turning to my husband and saying, “what is going on?” It was so odd to me. It was so unAmerican and unfamiliar to me.

My SIL told me years ago she thought it was so nice that the President says, “God bless the united States of America,” at the end of speeches, and I said I found it very strange. She wasn’t born and raised here, so this was from an immigrants perspective, because in her country the President can’t do that. Her country the church had too much control for too many years, and so there are much stricter bounds for separation of church and state than in America. Mind you, she can’t stand the holy rollers on the religious right.

KNOWITALL's avatar

Yes actually. My beliefs are personal and dear to me, and should not be trotted out for public display. Actually the bible says thats wrong. Acknowledging a fact is different than garnering votes or money from it.

My opinion is that its a show, nothing more, for many of these big politicians. Trump had hands laid on him, which I understand, but I have a very hard time believing he’s a believer.

As far as other religions, I’d feel the same way. Not for public display.

flutherother's avatar

If Trump is the Messiah I’m going to change my religion.

ragingloli's avatar

Imagine that.
Drumpf, a sex offender, philanderer, conman, compulsive liar, braggart and unrepentant narcissist, chosen by god.
Obama, family man, no personal scandals whatsoever, the Antichrist.
Find the contradiction.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Yes. It should disqualify them, as a potential political candidate. There is supposed to be a “separation between church, and state.”

Stache's avatar

Very much so.

kritiper's avatar

Yes. I am highly offended.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Extremely uncomfortable, leave God at home when it comes to politics.
Most have no problem screwing the working slob, so lets leave God out of it.

Pinguidchance's avatar

@Dutchess Does it make you uncomfortable when politicians make religion part of their public political life?

It’s quite a comfort when things are simplified.

It’s either a scamster trolling for my vote or a loon who believes in supernatural beings.

Response moderated
Response moderated
josie's avatar

@ragingloli, @MrGrimm888

Apparently Barack Obama was not the Antichrist.
Or, apparently he should have been disqualified.

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/28/us/politics/2006obamaspeech.html
https://www.pewforum.org/2008/11/04/religion-and-politics-08-barack-obama/

I bet it is not whether or not a politician makes religion a part of their public life, since many of them do it.

I bet it is only the particular context in which they do it. If you agree, then you forgive the transgression. If you disagree, you condemn.

The problem is not them. The problem is an epidemic of nearly sociopathic intolerance in their audience.

seawulf575's avatar

I guess it depends on what they are bringing forward. To suggest Trump is some sort of savior is going a bit far in my book. Saying you believe he was used by God for a purpose is probably okay. Having Rep Omar spew hatred of Jews because of her religious beliefs is going too far as well. To say you are of some religious belief and that you like the good it preaches and you try to live that way? I’m okay with that.

Darth_Algar's avatar

Your religion should be like your marital problems – leave the shit at home, don’t bring it to work.

JLeslie's avatar

What really threw me off was when they would mention being Christians. It’s like someone mentioning “I’m honest” or “you can trust me.” It’s weird. To us non Christians it feels like they are saying people who aren’t Christian aren’t as good or as trustworthy. It can be offensive.

I 100% agree with @Darth_Algar leave that shit at home.

@seawulf575 Omar didn’t market it as her religious beliefs. I understand your point though. I’m just comparing it to these TV ads and statements Christian politicians make declaring their religion or religious beliefs.

Response moderated
MrGrimm888's avatar

@josie . If by intolerance, you mean that I don’t think anyone in the government should be religious, then you are correct.

Dutchess_III's avatar

They shouldn’t be religious @MrGrimm888? Or they shouldn’t act religious as part of the job of public servant?

KNOWITALL's avatar

@JLeslie There was a thread here a long time ago about who you’d trust to watch your kids most, and a lot said Christians. Just imagine all that one word encompasses for some. There is power in it and it does garner support.

Is it any different than a Dem saying they are a Christian? Absolutely. They are in direct conflict with doctrine and the party lines. It’s unheard of here, for a Christian to be a proud Democrat.

So essentially they have little choice but to pronounce it if they want the Christian vote. Doesnt make it right, but its logical.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I don’t remember that thread. Can you post it here @KNOWITALL?

I don’t think anyone has a problem with a person being a Christian. Jimmy Carter was / is a Christian. So was Obama (I think.) But neither of them broadcast it while they were in office. Neither of them suggested they were almost ordained by God, like so many Republicans do.

JLeslie's avatar

@MrGrimm888 That’s way too far for me. I have no problem with politicians being religious, it’s how they apply it in their lives, and especially in government.

@KNOWITALL Two jellies who immediately come to mind are Judi and Filmfann, both religious Christians. Jimmy Carter obviously was and is a Democrat and a devout Christian. They (I mean some Christians, I’m not speaking for a particular person or jelly) do not feel in direct conflict. Possibly, on the issue of abortion it’s difficult, but on other issues they see the Republicans in direct conflict. In conflict with Jesus to help the least fortunate among us. In conflict when it comes to their belief that the constitution of the US was from divine intervention. That even when our founding fathers didn’t treat all men equally, they somehow had written it down. That eventually these words would be used to expand freedom.

The Democratic Party still has a lot of practicing Christians, and in fact, I think the Catholics especially (maybe you aren’t counting them for this particular Q as Christians) are extremely important in the next election. The Catholic vote I believe is a huge swing vote.

I absolutely would trust my Christian friends to watch my children. But, that’s because I believe my friends would always care about my beliefs.

I understand that politicians use it as a marketing tool, but I’m just saying it leaves some of us out when it’s stated that way. Romney doesn’t put in his commercials “I’m a Mormon.” I just rather religion be left out of the political game. Ethics and morals are important, but that comes from track record and explaining where people stand on issues.

With Trump, I don’t believe he is religious at all.

Demosthenes's avatar

It often does because it comes off to me as disingenuous pandering.

It’s one thing to talk about your faith positively and how it helps you in your life, it’s another to act like politicians are “God approved” or to cite the Bible as supporting a message of “obey Trump” and other such silliness designed to appeal to religious voters.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Exactly @Demosthenes. Like DeVos who wants to use our public schools to “build God’s Kingdom.”
With the ascension of trump, this country just lost its mind.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Hey before ya know it @Dutchess_III there will be a flag on every front porch, and a burning cross in every front lawn.

MrGrimm888's avatar

Dutch. I don’t think they should be religious. If they are religious, it’ll slip into some vote, or reveal itself in their actions eventually. Religion cannot be a variable in how ANY government decisions are made.

Sound extreme @JLeslie ? Not as extreme as allowing an invisible friend help me make decisions about reality.

JLeslie's avatar

@MrGrimm888 Well good luck getting all of Congress, or even most, and local politicians who aren’t religious and who aren’t theists. You’re not really dealing in realty there. Plenty of people identify with a religion and can separate church and state.

kritiper's avatar

@JLeslie I think you missed a main point of @MrGrimm888 ‘s post.
“If they are religious, it’ll slip into some vote, or reveal itself in their actions eventually.”
Note; @MrGrimm888 said EVENTUALLY.
Not every person, i.e. “all of congress,” is going to separate church and state every single solitary time.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@kritiper The main point for me, is the we swear to uphold the Constitution above all, not God or the bible or any religious entity. So really @MrGrimm has a point in that religious beliefs eventually come out so non theists would seem logical.
Impossible though.

@Dutchess I cant search here well, sorry.

@JLeslie Sure Dem Christians exist, but I hear ‘they cant be REAL Christians’.

jca2's avatar

I would be very surprised if Fluther had any thread where people defended Christians, let alone stated that they would trust Christians to watch their children, among all other people.

seawulf575's avatar

So let me ask, with the idea that someone religion will slip into some vote. How so? Christian values? They permeate our laws. So by that rationale, if you voted for anything that supported Christian values, that is wrong. So if you vote against allowing murder, you are wrong because your “religion” is creeping in. If you vote that stealing is wrong, your “religion” is creeping in. If you say it is wrong to lie under oath, your “religion” is creeping in. But also, if you vote for support for the needy, your “religion” is creeping in. If you vote for care for the elderly, your “religion” is creeping in.
So let’s look at what would be allowed without Christian values. If you vote for gun rights, you are not voting for a Christian value per se. Especially with the argument that guns kill. If you vote for bigger government, you are voting against the spiritual self so you are not voting for Christian values even though historically as government gets bigger, people’s freedoms evaporate. I guess if you vote in favor of abortion you are voting against Christian values.
But basically, if you vote for anything else, you are supporting Christian values in one way or another. So where do you draw that line?

seawulf575's avatar

@jca2 Welcome to that thread. I just did defend Christianity.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I asked @KNOWITALL to share that thread.
Most of our presidents have “been religious,” in that they professed to believe in God. Only 2, that I know of, have made it part of their public policy—Bush Jr and Trump, who is, of course, much more of a sodomite than a Christian.

JLeslie's avatar

@KNOWITALL What do you mean that you hear they can’t be REAL Christians? Who is saying that? Sorry if I’ve missed or misunderstood something.

I think Jimmy Carter is one of the best men on the planet. He certainly is a Christian. He teaches Sunday school (or did until fairly recently if he doesn’t anymore). He does an incredible amount of charitable work, and just listening to him brings peace to my heart and soul. He seems to have a lovely respectful marriage. He stands up for his beliefs, for what he feels is moral and right, including leaving a church for not considering women equal, and a consistent voice for equality of all people. I think he’s an amazing example of Christian values.

Demosthenes's avatar

@JLeslie Other Christians and Republicans, I would assume. I’ve heard the same thing from people I know. That being a Christian means you have to be a Republican, or at least you cannot be a Democrat. Which of course is ridiculous; there are plenty of Democratic Christians. Many Republicans like to act as if “Christian” and “Democrat” are mutually exclusive, but it’s just another way that people fail to understand people from different walks of life.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I love Carter. He was the first president I ever voted for. He’s my idea of the embodiment of Christianity.

jca2's avatar

@seawulf575: I’m talking about a thread from long ago where people (“a lot of people”) on Fluther supposedly said they would trust Christians the most to watch their children. That’s obviously not this, or you today. This is “a lot of people.” This is the past. This is according to @KNOWITALL. I trust @KNOWITALL but I find it hard to believe that a lot of people on Fluther said that, because traditionally, people on Fluther say negative things about Christians.

JLeslie's avatar

@Demosthenes Aha. I finally have the epiphany. Wow, that religion really is great at trying to control the group. Talk about peer pressure. I’m fairly disgusted now that I see what is going on. I’m thinking take the tax break away from that religion.

Dutchess_III's avatar

The only thread similar to that that I recall is where people were saying they’d trust a woman over a man to watch their kids. I don’t know what Christianity would have to do with anything unless they were positively rabid about it.

MrGrimm888's avatar

@seawulf575 . If a politician considers their religious teachings, or interpretation of religious texts, yes, their religion is creeping in. That’s illegal, and should lead to that person’s dismissal.

Your analogy is built on severely flawed logic. Stealing (for example ) is forbidden by many organized religions. Stealing is not unethical in Christianity only.
You act as if it’s an exclusively Christian idea. Which it isn’t…

So. If a non-religious person in government votes against murder, it is just coincidence. Not a confirmation that Christian ethics are legitimate.

You also seem to tale my words as an a front to Christianity only. Not true. My words were meant for ANY politician, who is a practicing theist.

@JLeslie . You are correct in that my opinion is unrealistic, at this time. Religion has had a head start in the common sense department, as it predates science by a long time. So. There are generations of sheep passing down the disease. Keep in mind that just because the majority of people have a disease, is not a reason to allow it to fester.

I know. Very touchy subject. For the theists on this thread, imagine that our leaders make decisions based on what they think Zeus would want. How would that make you feel?
What if their foreign policy was based on which ethnicity could lay claim to Mt. Olympus?
How would you feel about your children being taught that Zeus was the creator of everything?

ragingloli's avatar

You do not have to imagine Zeus.
Just imagine if they were Muslim, and were making laws according to Islam.
Imagine the outrage, and that is a religion that follows the same god as you.

JLeslie's avatar

@MrGrimm888 I was born and raised an atheist. I’ve probably been surrounded by atheists, people who never refer to God or religion, longer than you, and I bet longer than most of the people even here on fluther. My childhood was basically void of God. Most atheists I know were raised by parents who did some sort of God or religion thing. We did do Jewish holidays growing up, but I barely related it to some sort of religious thing. It was just food and family.

I don’t want leaders using religion as their guide for politics and policy. However, there is some crossover with religion and morality, ethics, fairness, sympathy, empathy, charity, and he golden rule, when the religion is being interpreted as we would hope.

If people feel religion gives them they compassion for others, then fine. It’s when religion is fire and brimstone, excludes others, and additional negatives that it becomes very worrisome to me.

It doesn’t matter if we call it religion, God, goodness, etc, that’s just semantics. People worried Kennedy would take direction from the Vatican. Kennedy understood the country is diverse, not everyone is Catholic. I think Romney would understand not everyone is Mormon. He understood it when he was Governor.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@JLeslie I’m fairly disgusted with the use of God for personal gain myself. I swore I would never run for office outside the local arena, as I dont have to declare a party, or use God, to win.

Also I would very much agree that pressure is put upon some from the pulpit and church family. Not for me personally, however, since I refuse to participate in organized religion due to hypocrisy and control.

And I like Carter, too. I dont agree a Christian cant be a Democrat, its just what seems to be a continuous theme here (Trump country) lately.

seawulf575's avatar

@jca2 Got it. I didn’t catch the tie to an earlier thread. sorry.

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 I use Christianity because our entire government was founded on Christian principles. Many of those same principles are shared by other religions, that is true. But we weren’t founded on Muslim or Buddhist ideals, for example.
What I don’t want is some idiot in power using religion as a tool or a cudgel. Those are the hypocrites. They are the ones that go against everything I believe to be the root of Christianity. I would support tossing those out on their ears. But for someone to say they are Christian or Muslim or whatever is really a meaningless statement. To me it is like saying I’m a caucasian or that I’m a Cleveland Browns fan. It means nothing unless you are actually are trying to use it. The difference is that since many religions have set rules or morals, it gives you an idea of what to expect out of that person. I don’t know many churches that are the fire and brimstone sort and pretty much every one I have been to has been very inclusive of people. I did see one fire and brimstone church around the corner from where I live. We were “church shopping” after moving in and checked it out. About halfway through the service we snuck out because it was just too weird. But it is a really small church and has very little impact in the area.
But I digress. I think the difference we (you and I) have is that I have a strong belief in Christianity, but don’t tolerate fools. I have seen too many people that are only Sunday or Holiday Christians. That isn’t it at all, or at least not what I see it as. I have seen very bigoted people that call themselves Christians and that isn’t what Jesus taught us either. But to me, being religious isn’t something you do, it is something you are. That is what it is all about, whether you are Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Satanist, or Atheist. It is about how you look at life and those around you. And you can’t stop doing that just because you are elected.

JLeslie's avatar

@KNOWITALL Did you ever see Carter’s interview with Oprah? It’s great. I would love to meet him. If I was in his town in GA I would love to sit in a Sunday school class with him. Just listen to him.

Here are some clips from the interview.

Politics and being president today.
http://www.oprah.com/own-super-soul-sunday/why-jimmy-carter-says-he-couldnt-be-president-today-video

Meeting his wife
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hCHd5Xn8hok

This you have to sign in to see the whole episode. http://www.oprah.com/own-super-soul-sunday/president-jimmy-carter_1

This you can listen to the entire thing I think. Make sure it cues to the beginning, the link is weird. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f92YYFdheXQ

@seawulf575 If you don’t want some idiot using crazy stuff from his religion then you have to keep religion out of government. That’s the whole point. If you allow Christians to use the Bible as a reason to make laws, then you open the door for Muslims, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Hindus, you name it, to do the same.

seawulf575's avatar

@JLeslie let’s cut through the garbage here. Show me where some Christian legislator said we had to pass a bill because the bible said it was the right thing to do. You won’t find it. That is a bogus argument and, in my opinion, way below your normal standards. This whole thread is about someone not liking Trump and trying to find something to hold against him or his administration. Even the article cited in the original question wasn’t about a legislator or even the POTUS saying we had to do something because it was what the bible told them.

kritiper's avatar

They could always come up with another excuse without actually saying “The Bible made me do it.”

jca2's avatar

There is always the example of the County Clerk who refused to do gay marriages a few years ago. She was not a legislator and she did not pass any laws, but she is an example of a religious person using religion to drive what she did, while being an elected official, @seawulf575.

JLeslie's avatar

@seawulf575 Many Christians willingly admit to letting their religion permeate every part of their life. If the schtick is to use Christianity as their marketing tool, to talk about our founders developing a country with Christian principles, and to be against gay marriage, because marriage is between a man and a woman (I’m pretty sure that their religion talking not civil liberties) then for sure some of us are going to assume and expect that those same politicians are using their Christianity to decide right and wrong and policy. I say their Christianity, because I don’t assume all Christians are alike.

The example of a civil official not being willing to do a gay marriage given by @jca2 is a good one. Why should gender matter for a civil contract between two people, and civil marriage is just that basically, a legal document. Plenty of people in Congress, and some presidents, and politicians on local levels have been against legalizing gay marriage. It’s based in religion.

Some use Christianity for their fight for Israel.

Some use their Christianity regarding birth control laws, and willingness to provide birth control. I’m not even talking about abortion.

The worst is this pressure I’m hearing to tell Christians they can’t be Democrats. That makes me sick. I’m assuming some people saying that are Christian politicians using religion to control the people.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@JLeslie It’s even more complicated because some who oppose abortion or SSM, are not just Reps, some are Democrats. Many blame the generation gap as opposed to party politics.

Which means it’s possible the votes may or may not be religiously motivated, see Democrats For Life America for example.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/08/03/democrats-abortion-pro-choice-life-219154

Or the fact that 40% of Democrats in three deep Blue states are against SSM.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/support-for-same-sex-marriage-isnt-unanimous/

JLeslie's avatar

@KNOWITALL I have no problem agreeing that people can have the same opinions for different reasons. I don’t think we are on different pages here. But, wouldn’t you also agree that some Christians, including some Christian politicians, look to their faith for answers regarding law? I think it can go either way regarding what answer they get from Christianity. For instance, there are Christians who believe prayer should be put in school, and there are Christians who don’t. There are Christians who were always ok with gay marriage, because they don’t want to impose their own beliefs about marriage on others by using a law.

It’s not just Christians. I remember Lieberman talking about putting prayer in school in an interview when he was running with Gore for President and Gore interrupted him to set things straight! I remember thinking why did Gore pick this guy? Gore was the Christian in that instance, and Lieberman Jewish, as everyone knows.

My dad used to be much less lenient on abortion until he decided, or I should say surmised from looking at research, it really seems to help societies overall to have it be legal. More of a greater good type of view, but he still has a lot of problems with it, and he isn’t religious at all.

Edit: I have a very close friend who is pro-life, Catholic, and votes Democrat, her parents always did also. Her dad used to say, “I vote Democrat because the republicans will never do anything to really help the average working guy.”

KNOWITALL's avatar

@JLeslie Yes, I absolutely would agree on that. And I will add that I don’t believe religion precludes logical or reasonable thought for every person in politics.

On a local level it has come up regarding approving alcohol permits of all things.

Since some strict sects (Baptists) frown on alcohol usage, so the council member would always make a no vote, even knowing he would be out-voted.

For me, that is too much, as that is a private feeling and choice, not something I’d vote as a representative of my city’s residents.

seawulf575's avatar

@jca2 Kim Davis was the Kentucky Clerk of Courts to whom you are referring. You misrepresent the situation entirely. Not sure if you were misrepresenting on purpose or not. The issue was not her refusing to do gay marriages. The Clerk of Courts does not do marriages. Her issue was that Kentucky law stated that she had to sign all marriage licenses personally. Her assistants could not sign. Her religious belief was that gay marriage was wrong in the eyes of God and by signing, she felt she was being forced to violate her faith. She did exactly what she was supposed to do…she petitioned the state (before the Obergefell decision) for a reasonable accommodation. The State of Kentucky screwed up by not giving her one. Her First Amendment rights were being threatened because her right to exercise her religion was being voided by not granting that accommodation. After the Obergefell decision was when the gay couple went past several counties to apply for a marriage license. Not sure why they did that, but they were not living in her county at the time. When push came to shove, she refused to violate her religious rights. And remember, all elected officials are citizens and are entitled to their rights, just like everyone else. Just because a person is elected, they do not forfeit their rights. She even said she didn’t mind them getting marriage licenses, she just didn’t want to have to sign them. That is a far cry from an elected official trying to use their position to pass laws based on religion or to influence policies. Ms Davis’ case was one of an individual sticking up for their own rights.

jca2's avatar

@seawulf575: In my post, I did point out that she was not a legislator and did not pass any laws, first of all, @seawulf575 . Second of all, if you learn more about Kim Davis, the Supreme Court refused to hear her appeal, which tells me something about her not having a legal leg to stand on.

Would you feel the same way about what Kim Davis did if she were citing Allah or Thor or some other god, and she were citing some beliefs that you didn’t believe in, for example an eye for an eye, public flogging or the right for an adult male to marry a girl child, or some other religious belief not commonly held in the US? I’m betting that it’s only because her beliefs are similar to your beliefs that you think what she did was acceptable.

An elected official is supposed to uphold the law of the land, not do what they want. I am a civil servant (i.e. public employee) and if I decided I didn’t want to issue public assistance checks because I think people should go out and get a job or I decided that John Q. Public should be denied his right to a gun because of my beliefs, I’d be fired in a heartbeat.

JLeslie's avatar

@seawulf575 What if everyone in KY refuses to sign marriage licenses? There shouldn’t be a religious exception for civil marriage. She works for the state. It’s nice if she can easily be accommodated, and someone else can simply sign, but if not, then she should be signing.

I can’t even believe you even mention that @jca2 might be purposely misrepresenting the situation. On purpose?! Is that what you do to try to make a case? That really bothers me. Sure, any of us can have misinformation, but I never think someone is purposely feeding misinformation. I certainly never would think it of @jca2, but maybe I should about you if your mind actually goes there. I can’t believe you wrote that.

seawulf575's avatar

@jca2 I would absolutely feel the same way if she was citing Allah or Thor or even Satan. It is her religious belief. But you can’t just use religion to get out of work. There has to be some basis for it. The bible presents enough arguments that same sex marriage is a sin to God to hold up to that litmus test. I would bet the Quran would likewise give that support. If you want to try claiming Thor told you not to do it, you would have to show some proof that he felt it was wrong.
As for Ms Davis, what you are obviously missing is that this isn’t about gay marriage. It is about religious freedoms. It IS a civil rights issue.

https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=97&page=transcript

https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/accommodation.html

The first article is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which spells out protection against discrimination. Please note that nowhere in there does it exclude elected or government officials from being covered.
The second article is from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission describing the use of Reasonable Accommodations. Please note that nowhere in this does it exclude elected of government officials from being covered.
Just because you are elected or work for the government does not mean you give up your civil rights. I can’t say that any more plainly. Ms Davis requested a reasonable accommodation that did not provide undue hardship on her employer. She asked for the marriage license form to be changed from specifying her as the sole signatory to a representative from that office. That would allow her to meet both her legal requirements and her religious ones. It would not have cost very much at all to meet. And it would have avoided a whole lot of hoopla. The State of KY was the employer that refused to grant her a reasonable accommodation. AND, might I point out, this all goes back to the First Amendment of the US Constitution “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” When the government is telling you to do something that violates your religious beliefs, they are prohibiting the free exercise of those religious beliefs.

jca2's avatar

@seawulf575: If Ms. Davis had a legal leg to stand on, don’t you think the Supreme Court would have heard her appeal? They refused. That should tell you something.

jca2's avatar

@seawulf575: If Kim Davis was a Muslim and she said her beliefs are that adults should be allowed to be married to minors, would you feel it’s OK?

seawulf575's avatar

@JLeslie If everyone in KY refused to sign marriage certificates then maybe it is time to revisit the rules concerning marriage certificates. And, as I pointed out to @jca2, you don’t give up your civil rights just because you are elected.
As for suggesting @jca might purposely misrepresent a situtation, why is that wrong? He DID misrepresent the situation. I just questioned whether it was on purpose or not. But I pointed out exactly how he misrepresented the situation and why he was wrong. His misrepresentation was pretty gross, in fact. Clerks of Court do not “do” marriages. Not in KY and not anywhere in the US that I know of. So it was a gross misrepresentation. To me there are only two ways to do that…by gross ignorance or purposeful misrepresentation. Take your pick.

seawulf575's avatar

@jca2 the SCOTUS doesn’t hear most of the cases that appear before them. Only something like 1% get heard. Maybe it didn’t reach the cut-off to be heard. You are putting a lot of importance on something that doesn’t mean a lot.

And your option for Ms Davis being a Muslim and feeling adults should be allowed to marry minors is equally idiotic. You are fading fast. You are trying desperately to jump from Ms Davis trying to protect her religious freedoms to her trying to change law through her use of her religious beliefs. But if you want to put the two together, then let’s take a look at how they would play out. We already talked about her not wanting sign the marriage certificates. She put forth her requests in the proper form…a request for a Reasonable Accommodation. So now move to the option of her wanting to allow adults to marry minors. If she felt she should be allowed to do that, she would first have to change the laws. She could put in a request for a Reasonable Accommodation, but it would be an undue hardship on her employer to provide. They would have to override the law which is not reasonable. If she just randomly decided to give a marriage license to an adult wanting to marry a minor, she would be violating the law. Oh, and BTW, in the REAL case concerning Ms Davis, it should be pointed out that at the time the entire hoopla started, the KY constitution identified a marriage as being between one man and one woman. It was specific. So the state doubly set her up. If she issued a marriage license to a gay couple, she would not only be violating her religious convictions, she would also be violating state law. The fact that Obergefelll v Hodges had been ruled on in the SCOTUS does not change the fact it is still in the state law.

Darth_Algar's avatar

Frankly, the more I saw and heard out of Kim Davis the more I reached the conclusion that she was little more than an attention whore looking for her 15 minutes and not caring who got sprayed by her flinging her shit into the fan.

seawulf575's avatar

@Darth_Algar I think the same could be said about the gay couple that applied for the marriage license she refused to sign. They bypassed several closer (closer to their home) places they could have gotten a license to go to the one they knew was reluctant. Sounds like a set up, doesn’t it?

jca2's avatar

@seawulf575: In Rowan County, Kentucky, you do not even have to be a resident of the state in order to get a marriage license from that County Clerk. So your argument about the gay couple not living in that county does not hold water.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@seawulf575

As usual, you have no idea what you’re talking about. David Ermold and David Moore, the couple in question, were residents of Morehead, KY (the county seat of Rowan County, where Davis’ office was).

MrGrimm888's avatar

His whole argument doesn’t hold water. Did he really suggest that all is needed is “proof” that your religion is opposed to something to do whatever you want?

Nobody working in law, in this country, can put their religious beliefs before it. If details of a job may interfere with your religion, DON’T APPLY FOR THE JOB. Davis should be forced to sign, or forced to resign, or simply fired.

In a somewhat separate matter,
In most cases, a US citizen’s rights cannot infringe on another’s rights.

I also find it interesting that homosexuality, is NOT a choice. Religion IS. Those who do not support the LGBQT community, and get mad when they ask for accommodations specific to their circumstances, will often stick up for idiots like Davis and her “rights,” although it is Davis who “chose” to make an issue of it.

The gay couple didn’t choose to be gay. Their only mistake, was choosing that specific place to get their documents taken care of. Yes. They chose other locations, and made a big deal of it. That’s part of the strategy of civil rights movements. Expose inequalities, and deal with them.

G.W. saying (not verbatim) that God wanted democracy in the Middle East, is a far greater example of just how badly thongs can go when a person in power makes decisions based on their own religious beliefs. One could easily argue that this one single example changed the lives of billions of people. It created ripple effects that will be felt for a LONG time…

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 I refer you to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. All of your beliefs seem to run entirely contrary to the actual law. If you were a hiring manager and refused to hire me because I said I couldn’t work on the Sabbath, I would own you in court. That is religious discrimination. You, as the representative of the company, would have the onus of proving that not having me there for that one day was causing you undue hardship. That is an argument you couldn’t win.

But one thing you said was entirely true: In most cases, a US citizen’s rights cannot infringe on another’s rights. In the case of Kim Davis, that is exactly what was happening. She was not, however, infringing on the gay couple’s rights, she was being asked to forego her own rights. So you are putting the rights of the gay couple ahead of Ms. Davis or, as you put it, you are suggesting that the rights of the gay couple CAN infringe on the rights of Ms. Davis. And in the end, had the State of KY actually done what they were supposed to per the law, both parties could have had their rights left in tact and we wouldn’t be talking about it. In fact, the state of KY did a double injustice to Ms. Davis. Not only did they agree to a Reasonable Accommodation when she requested it, they were asking her to perform a duty that was contrary to the state Constitution. They put her into a no-win situation.

jca2's avatar

@seawulf575: If you were hired to work, let’s say, Wednesday through Sunday and then you said “oh by the way, I can’t work Sundays” you think the employer would have to deal with it?

JLeslie's avatar

@seawulf575 You don’t see a difference between on purpose and accidental? The difference if @jca2 knows the truth, and lies or makes up details to change the opinion of others? Are you kidding me?

I’m so disgusted.

As far as changing law because everyone, or a majority, in a state feels a certain way, the majority is not always on the side of right.

She is not do a religious marriage, it’s a civil contract between two people that governs property rights, and inheritance rights, and all sorts of rights that mostly have to do with finances actually. If there are children involved there are laws governing the care of the children in the marriage too. I know republicans want to make civil marriage a religious thing, but it isn’t. If you get married in a church without the civil document, you are not legally married. If you get legally married, you are not married in the religion, unless your religion accepts any declaration of marriage as marriage.

JLeslie's avatar

You can’t hold the word marriage hostage. Flavors marry in cooking. In nautical terms you can marry two ropes, basically knotting them together (tie the knots).

It’s just so frustrating and ridiculous some of the arguments put forth trying to stand in the way of legal marriage between two people. It’s not religious when the state does it. It’s a document governed by laws.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@MrGrimm888 (Some people do still believe it’s a choice. js)

JLeslie's avatar

I think it shouldn’t matter if it’s a choice. If two adults choose to marry that’s it.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@seawulf575

Your argument falls short because of one simple detail – when in her role as county clerk, Mrs. Davis is not functioning as a private citizen. She is functioning as an extension of the State of Kentucky.

Now could she be fired from her job (as a private citizen employed by another private citizen could). As an elected official she could be removed from office via an act of the state legislature, or she could be voted out come election day.

But it’s rather a moot point now, as the people of Rowan County voted her out of office last November.

jca2's avatar

As I explained above to @seawulf575, if I, as a public employee, said it violated my religious beliefs to issue gun permits to people or to issue public assistance (commonly known as welfare) checks to people, I’d be fired in a heartbeat, no matter what my religion told me was correct.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

If your religious beliefs are going to be a problem from carrying out your duties in your day to day job, then maybe you shouldn’t take that job.

And @KNOWITALL I guess there would be some extreme idiots that still believe it’s a choice.

Dutchess_III's avatar

It also should not affect your medical judgement if you’re a doctor.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 There are quite a few actually. You don’t live here so you probably aren’t aware of the communities of ‘pray you straight’ camps, but they do exist. My friends dad preached at one, and marries LGBTQ’s to straight people and convinces them it’s God’s will to live a straight life. The whole, go forth and sin no more crowd.

Stache's avatar

@KNOWITALL Just because they believe it’s a choice doesn’t make it a fact. They are ignorant. This is why so many people are disgusted with Trump and Pence (one of the many reasons why I should say). They cater to the crowd that believes it’s a choice. They don’t protect the LGBT community.

MrGrimm888's avatar

@seawulf575 . See @Darth_Algar ‘s comment. Davis did not have the same rights as a private US citizen.
Davis should not hold that position. Simple.

Davis’ rights were not infringed upon. She simply refused to do her job. Her motivation for not doing her job is irrelevant really. Only to this subject.

And although it is a rather small issue, in the big picture, it is a perfect example of religion overstepping it’s bounds. You can interpret many religious texts in many ways. The law doesn’t need interpretation here. It is clearly/intentionally written that there is to be a separation of church and state…

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Stache I happen to agree with you. There are far more of them than most people realize.

Although Trump didnt fight SSM like he was expected to, so theres that.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@KNOWITALL

Because there’s nothing to fight. Same-sex marriage is a matter of Constitutional law, under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The same statute cited by the Supreme Court in Loving v Virginia (1967), which settled, once and for all, the legality of interracial marriage. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell v Hodges likewise settled the legality of same-sex marriage. It would require amending the Constitution to change either of those now.

Stache's avatar

@KNOWITALL I believe you because I am aware.

“Although Trump didnt fight SSM like he was expected to, so theres that.”

Sure, but he doesn’t want transgender people in the military. He made sure of that. People who were brave enough to serve their country, unlike Mr. Bone Spurs. He has also taken away other rights for the LGBT community but it’s late and I have no time to find sources. Trump is anti-LGBT if you do your research.

This is why I have no respect for someone who supports the Republican party. These are human rights.

seawulf575's avatar

@jca2 “If you were hired to work, let’s say, Wednesday through Sunday and then you said “oh by the way, I can’t work Sundays” you think the employer would have to deal with it?” Yes, the employer would have to deal with it if it was being asked as an integral part of their religious exercise. Seventh Day Adventists, for example, consider Saturday (Friday evening through Saturday evening) to be the Sabbath. Their religious beliefs say they are not to work on this day. So if they are in a job that wants them to work it, they are allowed to say no and ask for a Reasonable Accommodation. Once that is done, it is then incumbent on the business to either grant it or be able to show why they cannot…why it presents an undue hardship on the company. If the company had to go hire another person just to fill that time, for instance, they could claim undue hardship. Having to juggle a schedule is not undue hardship. But if you ever notice, businesses get around this in the hiring process by asking, during the application, what days/times the person is available for work. If they absolutely need someone to work on the day that person cannot work, they may not get hired and the company has not inquired about the religious beliefs of the person.

seawulf575's avatar

@JLeslie given the information from @jca2‘s reply, no, I could not differentiate between accidental or purposeful. Why are you so geared up over me daring to question this? I get challenged on this exact thing all the time when I make perfectly clear and unambiguous statements. I don’t see you getting wound up about those. Here’s a clue…no one is above being questioned about motive.
As for Kim Davis “doing” marriages, she doesn’t do religious OR civil ceremonies. She doesn’t “DO” them at all! She issues marriage licenses. That’s it. That is not “doing” a marriage. “Doing” a marriage is what the minister or JOP do.

seawulf575's avatar

@Darth_Algar “Your argument falls short because of one simple detail – when in her role as county clerk, Mrs. Davis is not functioning as a private citizen. She is functioning as an extension of the State of Kentucky.” Okay, you obviously haven’t caught it the last three times I have said it so I will challenge you directly. Show me where the Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn’t apply to elected officials. You show me ANYWHERE that you give up your civil rights when you accept ANY job. Your argument falls flat when facts are applied.

seawulf575's avatar

@jca2 “if I, as a public employee, said it violated my religious beliefs to issue gun permits to people or to issue public assistance (commonly known as welfare) checks to people, I’d be fired in a heartbeat, no matter what my religion told me was correct.” There is so much here for me to challenge you with. What religion says you can’t issue public assistance? Please, enlighten us. It is a bullshit example you are trying to create. Same with gun licenses. But the law remains the same. If you, as an employee, in the normal performance of your duties, are asked to do something to which you have a religious objection, you are allowed to request a Reasonable Accommodation. Maybe someone else actually signs the gun licenses. Maybe someone else has to lick the envelopes for the public assistance. Whatever. Why is that so hard to understand? Is it that you are just wound up because it was a Christian that asked for a Reasonable Accommodation? Let’s review. When she took her job (and even when the gay couple asked for a marriage license), the Kentucky state constitution specifically stated a marriage was between one man and one woman. Ms Davis, seeing the hoopla surrounding the Obergefell case, asked for a Reasonable Accommodation…asked for the license to be physically changed to remove her specific name as the signatory and make it anyone in her office. That simple change would have defused the entire thing. Remember, this is before Obergefell was ruled on. The state refused for no real good reason. Ms Davis did exactly what was required of her…she asked for a Reasonable Accommodation to avoid conflict with her religious beliefs. Why is that so hard to understand? It doesn’t matter what her job is, it doesn’t matter what her beliefs are. Well, I guess that isn’t entirely true…she would have to have an established religion she is following. She couldn’t make up a religion and claim she needs to follow it.

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 “Davis did not have the same rights as a private US citizen. ” Since you tie yourself to @Darth_Algar and his comment, you are offered the exact same challenge I gave to him. Show me where the Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn’t apply to elected officials. You show me ANYWHERE that you give up your civil rights when you accept ANY job. Your argument falls flat when facts are applied.

Dutchess_III's avatar

No body is listening any more @seawulf575.

jca2's avatar

@seawulf575: Why would I be “all wound up that it was a Christian that asked for a reasonable accommodation” when I’m a Christian too? Helloooooo. I believe in God, I also believe that women should have the right to an abortion, and we shouldn’t have people praying in school, and anybody should be able to marry anybody they want. So before you say I’m an awful person because I’m not sticking up for public servants who are not willing to do their jobs, know who your audience is.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_lll Then why did you and @jca2 answer?

jca2's avatar

@seawulf575: I answered because I’m having my morning coffee now and killing time.

jca2's avatar

Before I go off to do my job as a civil servant…..

seawulf575's avatar

Ahh…so you are a civil servant! So when you got your job you signed a paper that said you waived your civil rights? You are no longer entitled to free speech or religious rights or even a right to a fair trial or any of that? So if there is a promotion you are going for, they can discriminate against you for being a Christian or of a certain race or sex or age? After all, that is effectively what your arguments are.

Dutchess_III's avatar

And I go off to be a government paid PE Teacher. (Today is gonna kill me….)

jca2's avatar

@seawulf575: I’ve been saying to you that if I said I couldn’t issue gun permits or give welfare checks blah blah blah up above. I have been talking about being a civil servant all over this thread.

jca2's avatar

@seawulf575: As for free speech, no, at work I am not entitled to free speech. I am not entitled to say what I want to whomever I want. While at work, I must behave in a certain way. When I’m home, I can say what I want. While on Facebook, I am not entitled to say what I want either, as Facebook owns the content. Same as Fluther.

I have had coworkers who have told off politicians and when it was found that they were on their lunch hour, it was ok. If they were on the clock, they would have been brought up on charges. So yes, my rights as a citizen do not mean that at work I can say whatever I want, @seawulf575.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Stache And while I respect many Democrats, I feel the same about abortion that you do about LGBT rights. Enough said.

seawulf575's avatar

@jca2 So if your work suddenly said you had to voice an opinion favorable of Trump to every customer, you’d have to do that, right? After all, you don’t have the right to free speech and they can tell you to say whatever they want. Remember, that is what you are saying…not only are you restricted on what you can say, but also you have to say whatever they want you to say. Likewise, if they told you that praying to Allah at lunch time was required, you’d have to do that as well. Or if they said that when you turned 50 you could no longer work there. Or that you were being fired because they wanted to hire someone of a different race, that would be okay as well since, well, it is a public job and they can do whatever they want. All those things would be okay and you would have no recourse because it is a public job.

jca2's avatar

I don’t know what you’re talking about as far as being fired because they wanted to hire someone of a different race.

I didn’t say that because it’s a public job they can do whatever they want. Did you see that I wrote that anywhere? I said I don’t have the right to say whatever I want while I’m at work.

kritiper's avatar

This is one of my bitches about life outside a court of law: You are guilty until proven innocent. That’s why you can’t say just any old thing while at work. The bosses can fire you for what you say, but use another excuse to actually fire you and you can’t do anything about it since you would have to get a lawyer and take the company to court.
True justice should not be about money or who has or can afford the best lawyer.

jca2's avatar

Absolutely true, @kritiper. Can’t work on Sunday when we need you on Sunday? Oh, you were five minutes late yesterday. You’re fired!

seawulf575's avatar

@jca2 the point is that you still have your civil rights even when you work for the government. It is illegal to discriminate against anyone based on race, sex, age, and/or religion. And while they might have rules about what you cannot say when you are working, they do not have rules about forcing you to say or do things that go against your beliefs, unless you took a job doing something you believe to be wrong. And Ms Davis was put into just such a position. When elected, she didn’t face the crisis of conscience or faith because her job didn’t conflict with it. Suddenly the rules were changing and they could conflict and she did exactly what she was supposed to do…ask for an accommodation that eliminates the conflict.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@seawulf575

That “reasonable accommodation” you keep going on about – it was already there. Mrs. Davis was in no way required to personally sign any marriage document. All that was required was that her or someone under her to authenticate the document. That authentication can be in the form of a hand-written signature or in the form of a rubber stamp (which is typically in the likeness of a seal or a signature).

The problem wasn’t that Davis herself didn’t want to authenticate these documents, but that she was also preventing anyone else in her office from doing so.

As for civil rights – yes, you do surrender some, to a degree, when you are on the clock. Especially as civil servant. You know damn well that, say, a Muslim woman employed in a government office would not be allowed to wear a face veil (and I’m guessing we’d hear no complaints from you over that).

seawulf575's avatar

@kritiper I agree with you. Let’s be honest, if they (your employers) want to get rid of you, they can. Fighting wrongful termination is difficult and almost impossible in right-to-work states. Also, while they are not allowed, by law, to ask you about your marital status, age, religious beliefs, etc. when you are applying for a job, they can ask you other things that will give them that information. For instance, I can’t ask you your age, but I can ask you for your work history including starting and stopping dates. Based on that I can pretty well guess your age. If your first job listed started in 1980, it is likely that you are more than 55. And when making a decision, all they have to say is that they decided to go with another candidate.

seawulf575's avatar

@Darth_Algar Unfortunately, you are off-base on the Reasonable Accommodation. The initial marriage license had a line that needed to be signed and the signatory was “Kim Davis”. It has since been changed to “Rowan County” which allows anyone in the Clerks office to sign it. THAT is the reasonable accommodation she was originally seeking, which the state of KY felt was an undue hardship to meet.

MrGrimm888's avatar

^Empowering “anyone in the clerk’s office” to do Davis’ job, is NOT a reasonable accommodation. Who knows what other problems could be in the future with Davis, as she allows her beliefs to be a higher authority than the government she was hired to work for. It would make far more sense to terminate Davis. She can seek “reasonable accommodations” at the unemployment office.

seawulf575's avatar

^Again, there are several statutes that protect people’s civil rights. Firing someone because they have religious beliefs is not legal. AND, you are making a gross assumption in my mind. Ms Davis was, by all accounts, a solid worker…doing a great job for years.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@KNOWITALL You completely misunderstood @Stache‘s post. Off by a mile. He supports gay rights and gay marriage and transgender rights so he does not feel about LGBT folks the way you feel about abortion.
He endedd with, “This is why I have no respect for someone who supports the Republican party. These are human rights.”

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Dutchess I dont want to derail the thread, we know how this ends by now. So enough said.

jca2's avatar

@seawulf575: Thanks to the Janus decision, there are no longer such things as Right to Work states. Union membership is no longer a requirement in any state.

seawulf575's avatar

@jca2 I think your understanding of Right to Work states and mine are different. The Right to Work laws, as I understand them, allow people to work without having to join a union…a union cannot force non-union people to pay dues. I guess that’s the same as the Janus decision, but it sounds different than what you said. And they do still exist. About half the states in the union are R-W states. That means in about half of the states, the unions still hold sway.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@KNOWITALL You see completely different endings than the rest of the world sees.

As far as I know, companies have always hated Unions @jca2. When I worked at Rubbermaid and Boeing we were strongly discouraged from joining.

jca2's avatar

Definitely, @Dutchess_III. You’re right about that. Now things are different thanks to the Janus decision which changed things in 2018.

ragingloli's avatar

Historically, companies hated unions so much, that they hired thugs to kill unionists.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Dutchess_III Did I ever ask for your interpretation of my conversations with other jellies?
Not everyone cares to see through Val’s lense, I know I don’t. Mind ya bidness.

(Another GREAT example of why you aren’t on my social media anymore-in case you forgot.)

Dutchess_III's avatar

You have told me 4 times now that you removed me from your friend’s list. I get it, and I don’t care.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Dutchess_III Then quit talking to me and interfering with my other conversations that don’t involve you. 3rd request.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@Dutchess_III Reemember this is @KNOWITALL ‘s thread . . . . ooops Dutch was the OP ! ! !

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Tropical_Willie Let her follow you around the site commenting on everything you post then, haha, it’s pretty crazy imo.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

It is her Question isn’t @KNOWITALL ? ? ? ?

It’s just contrary to your POV and beliefs.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Tropical_Willie Stache, Darth and I were conversing while others discussed something else. Then she popped in to tell me I misunderstood something, and if I corrected her at that point, it would lead to a discussion about abortion, which she is sensitive about. So it should have been the end, when I tried twice to disengage her.

She doesn’t own a thread, she just posted a question like anyone else here.

No, it’s not contrary to my POV or beliefs (you can read right?), I agreed with her, that’s what ridiculous about it.

Stache's avatar

@KNOWITALL This is a public site. Anyone is welcome to join a conversation. What’s crazy is you constantly saying personal things to @Dutchess (like you unfollowing her on Facebook) that have nothing to do with the conversation.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@KNOWITALL

You don’t own the thread either. It’s a public forum. You cannot dictate who can and cannot respond to you.

MrGrimm888's avatar

@seawulf575 . I never said that Davis should be fired for her religious beliefs. When those beliefs affect your profession (excluding a paid position within a religion,) it’s time to replace the religious person with someone who does what they are paid for.

Davis should work in a church, where she can make decisions based on her faith. Ah, but don’t be surprised if she is let go from there as well if her views don’t strictly adhere to that specific church’s interpretation of Christianity.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Stache Thanks Cpt Obvious. She does it to other, too, its been noticed. Its just stalkerish. Three or four public requests to stop is enough for normal people to get the hint.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I think some one is a bit paranoid and narcissistic. Someone thinks people are “jealous” of them, when they aren’t. Someone thinks someone is thinking about them constantly, to the point they are “stalking” them, when they aren’t.

Stache's avatar

@KNOWITALL I do more reading than answering on this site and I see what goes on. This is a small site. It’s impossible to avoid anyone. You’ve accused me of stalking you before. @Dutchess_III is right. You are paranoid and it is narcissistic to think such a thing. The two of you spend a lot of time on this site so it’s a given that you’ll interact on the same questions.

Cpt. Obvious? You sound like Trump with the name calling. Grow up.

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 when you say things like: “When those beliefs affect your profession (excluding a paid position within a religion,) it’s time to replace the religious person with someone who does what they are paid for.” you ARE saying that religious persecution is acceptable and that Kim Davis should have been fired for hers. You don’t want to admit that is what you are saying, but it is. You double down by saying that religious folks should only work for churches. How very bigoted of you! I have pointed out to you already that firing someone for their religious beliefs is illegal, especially if they have asked for a reasonable accommodation. I will challenge you to show me where you give up your civil rights when you get a job. Show me where that is written.

Dutchess_III's avatar

@Stache and what’s funny in light of her accusations, this was MY question and she chose to come answer it and start a fight.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Dutchess_III Actually that’s incorrect. I answered the question like everyone else and moved on. @Stache and I were finally having a rational conversation, then you chose to involve yourself and act as interpreter between Stache and I, which was completely unnecessary.

Then, when you made an assumption, I chose to not engage you or add to the discussion you intefered in, because you can’t have a rational discussion about abortion.

So needless to say, from my pov, you did not allow Stache and I to have a conversation.

I tried to be graceful and end it twice and you just keep the childishness going. In future, I’ll continue my conversation and ignore your instigating like others have recommended…lol

MrGrimm888's avatar

@seawulf575 . You apparently lack the sense to understand the difference between Davis’ job, and religious persecution… Not my problem….

seawulf575's avatar

@MrGrimm888 apparently you cannot understand the difference between your views and religious persecution…which there is no difference. You have said it several times that religion has no place in anyone that has a job and that the only job a religious person is fit for is in a church…and maybe not even there. Hate much?

Dutchess_III's avatar

It depends on the job, duh, @seawulf575. But generally speaking, no, religion has any place entering into anyone’s chosen profession. No more place than their love of pornography or any other non-work related obsession.
It has nothing do do with hatred either, silly boy.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III no, but it has everything to do with discrimination. You are all espousing the idea that everyone should somehow give up their religious rights when they get a job. Again…that is against all the civil rights laws and rules out there. So despite the actual laws against discrimination, you are all embracing discrimination because you don’t like religion. Come to think of it, that is hatred.

Dutchess_III's avatar

No. You can keep your religious beliefs. You can not try to convert or convince or coerce other people into believing the same things you do. That’s all.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Exactly ^^^^ Don’t try and convert me, just do your job.
Go ahead and be religious to your hearts content, but if those views keep you from doing your job, either change jobs or leave those views at home while at work,has fucking nothing to do with hate,good grief.

If you work for a Ford dealership, should you really push GMC, because you believe it is a better vehicle?
If elected or hired to do a job, and your beliefs get in the way of doing said job,either change jobs,or leave and keep the views and beliefs quiet during your work day.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III and that was exactly what Kim Davis was trying to do…keep her religious beliefs. Yet it was the LGBTQ community that was trying to convert/convince/coerce her into believing (or at least supporting) the same things they do. Yet for some reason you don’t seem to care about that. How about this…keep your sexual preferences to yourself. Why bring them into everyone else’s business? What? It’s their civil rights? Oh my! exactly what I’ve been saying about religious rights. And here’s the kicker…religious freedom is actually addressed in the Constitution.

Dutchess_III's avatar

You can not discriminate against people because of your religious beliefs.

Yes, religious freedom is protected in the constitution, but it is expressly forbidden in the government at the same time because of people like dumbass Kim.

ragingloli's avatar

Nonsense.
She was trying to discriminate against and deny legal rights to gay people.
Do not pretend that this was about “her religious freedom”, because you know that is a lie.
No one was trying forcing her to marry a woman.

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III, Where is it written that religion is expressly forbidden in government?!? That isn’t true at all. You need to show a source for that. It IS true the government cannot establish a national religion, but for people working for the government to give up their religious freedoms? You are 100% wrong. 100%. You cannot show me where that comes from, yet I have already shown where civil rights are protected. There are a number of places. So either show me where your claim comes from or retract it as being bullshit.

Dutchess_III's avatar

(Is he serious?) It’s the first amendment to the Constitution! “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion….”

“The phrase “separation between church & state” is generally traced to a January 1, 1802, letter by Thomas Jefferson…” to put the first amendment in a nutshell.

They had come out of a nation that was governed by the Church of England, and they saw the abuses that such a thing caused.

Response moderated (Personal Attack)
JLeslie's avatar

Law trumps religion in the US. You can’t sacrifice a virgin no matter how sacred it is in your religion. You can’t stone a woman for talking to another man. You can’t rape your wife saying your religion states the wife must submit.

Too bad, there are lines drawn by law where you don’t get to do whatever you want in the name of religious freedom.

Human rights, equality, civil rights, these things carry more weight in the United States of America than religious beliefs. At times we stray from this, and it’s always a mistake.

ragingloli's avatar

She discriminated by denying marriage licenses based on her personal beliefs.
She discriminated by refusing to resign, because that would have meant her clerks would then be able to issue the licenses. By. Her. Own. Admission.
With the legalisation of gay marriage nationwide, the right to marry became a onstitutional right for gay people. As an employee of the government, it is not her right to act in contradiction to the constitution
“Before the stay expired, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit refused to extend that ruling for an appeal. “It cannot be defensibly argued that the holder of the Rowan County clerk’s office… may decline to act in conformity with the United States Constitution”, the three-judge panel wrote unanimously in their refusal, continuing, “There is thus little or no likelihood that the clerk in her official capacity will prevail on appeal.””

seawulf575's avatar

@Dutchess_III you are supposed to be a teacher. Are you really that bad on reading interpretation? “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion….” What does that mean as it is written? Congress cannot make a law establishing a religion. Period. They cannot establish a federal religion which is exactly what I said. They did not do that in the Kim Davis case. As for letter from Jefferson, I notice you give no source for your claim. Not a big surprise there. You are great at trying to give others a hard time about making claims without sources but you almost never do. Here, let me help you:

https://usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

This is another good article showing more of the reasoning behind the establishment clause

https://www.livescience.com/10156-separation-church-state.html

But here’s the kicker: None of this is law. Even Jefferson did not believe it was wrong for a person to hold their religious rights….and he was an elected official! Quite the opposite…he just didn’t want the federal government forcing a religion on all. Please note that he also did not address the States establishing a religion…just the federal government. So none of this has to do with Kim Davis at all, though it was a nice dodge. To put the capper on the dodge, you also did a partial quote of the First Amendment. Here, let me list the FULL statement about religion: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” And darn it, it is that last part that actually DOES apply to Kim Davis. And I notice you still have not been able to produce a single thing supporting your bullshit claim.

seawulf575's avatar

@ragingloli she refused to sign the licenses because she viewed that as a violation of her faith. She asked for the reasonable accommodation so her staff could sign the licenses instead of her so she wasn’t trying to discriminate. Oh, and yeah, Kentucky did finally change their marriage license forms so the County Clerk does not have to sign them…only a representative of that office. Of course that all came long after the fact.
“With the legalisation of gay marriage nationwide, the right to marry became a onstitutional right for gay people. ” Stop right there. What legislation? Where is it? What law was passed? Oh that’s right…it never was. It was a SCOTUS ruling on the Obergefell v Hodges case. And basic civics should tell you that the separation of powers means the SCOTUS does not make laws. So what legislation are you talking about? Sources!!!! But if you are going to argue about how national law supercedes state laws, then you would agree that Sanctuary cities and states are illegal, right? They go entirely against federal immigration laws so they should be illegal. How about gun law? There are states that continually try passing legislation that violates the US Constitution as well as many, many SCOTUS rulings defining what is and isn’t allowed. So you would agree these efforts by states are illegal, right?

ragingloli's avatar

Yes, with that SCOTUS ruling, gay marriage became legal nation wide. Which is called “legalisation”.
Or are you so vocabulary challenged, that you do not know the difference between the words ‘legalisation’ and ‘legislation’?

seawulf575's avatar

And which law was it? Please…enlighten us all.

ragingloli's avatar

The ruling was that all laws that ban gay marriage were unconstitutional.
The law therefore is “The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution”.
It is just amazing how dense you are.

Dutchess_III's avatar

LOL! Take up the interpretation with Thomas Jefferson! He’s the one that came up with the phrase “Separation of church and state” when referring to the 1st Amendment!

Demosthenes's avatar

@ragingloli “She discriminated by refusing to resign, because that would have meant her clerks would then be able to issue the licenses. By. Her. Own. Admission.” Is that actually true? I hadn’t heard that part of it. If that’s true, that’s pretty bad. That isn’t just “this isn’t something I can do”, it’s “I want to make sure no one else can do it too”. That’s actively tying to stop something from happening, not just refusing to take part.

seawulf575's avatar

@ragingloli by your own citation she was supporting her own religious rights. Not sure what you were trying to prove there. Amazing. Not to mention that the rules and the forms called her by name as the signatory. So letting her clerks sign was not allowed. Sorry, you lose again, boss.

As for the fourteenth amendment, yes, that was what the majority of the SCOTUS ruled. But let’s look at that ruling. Ginsburg and Kagan both officiated at same-sex weddings while the Obergefell case was in the SCOTUS docket. This is a gross violation of ethics for them to not recuse themselves. The code of Conduct of United States Judges, canon 3A(6) states:
”(6) A judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court. A judge should require similar restraint by court personnel subject to the judge’s direction and control. The prohibition on public comment on the merits does not extend to public statements made in the course of the judge’s official duties, to explanations of court procedures, or to scholarly presentations made for purposes of legal education.” Also, 28 U.S.C. 455 (a) states: ”(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Officiating at same-sex weddings could easily be construed as challenging the impartiality of their views. So had the liberal justices actually shown ethical behavior, your 5–4 decision would have been a 4–3 decision the other way. Seems like ethics are only a concern for liberals if they fear a conservative may avoid them (see Kavanaugh fears about abortion).

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@seawulf575 You still suck at logic. She as a government official cannot “by your own citation she was supporting her own religious rights.”

Stache's avatar

Um, it’s still 2019, right?

jfk I feel like I’m reading The Handmaids Tale right now.

Response moderated (Personal Attack)
jca2's avatar

“A lawsuit, Miller v. Davis, was filed, and Davis was ordered by the U.S. District Court to start issuing marriage licenses. She appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the application to appeal was denied. ”

@seawulf575: The US District court would not have ordered her to start issuing marriage licenses if doing so violated her rights. Above is cut and pasted from Wiki.

Dutchess_III's avatar

She always had the option to quit and find another job. Nobody could FORCE her to do something.

This myth of religious persecution just borders on ridiculous. But, persecution is a mainstay in Christianity. They don’t feel like they are real Christians if they aren’t being persecuted in some way, so they have to make shit up.

Response moderated (Spam)

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther