Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 30 of 30

Thread: Supreme Court rules against Kentucky clerk in gay marriage case

  1. #21
    Don't Ban me Bro! John's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,647
    Thanked: 4894
    Quote Originally Posted by Susan View Post
    Really? Because (if I'm understanding correctly) if Roe v. Wade was struck, it would go back to being a states right issue. Abortion would not be illegal, it just wouldn't be a federal law.
    The pro-lifers insist on a Federal ban, that is where all the energy is directed. The notion of states rights is beyond them, they continually tilt at windmills. My take is that the strategy (a federal ban) will never happen and the "pro-lifers" know it but it does get the voting bloc they need. It's a cynical ploy to win the "social conservative".

    Now, if the energy were directed at states rights, I do believe the effort would succeed.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to John For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (09-29-2015)

  3. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by John View Post
    The pro-lifers insist on a Federal ban, that is where all the energy is directed.
    Oh, I see. I don't ever see that happening. We are living in a country where people are making excuses for selling aborted fetal parts for profit. We are too evil.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Susan For This Useful Post:

    Femme* (09-04-2015), FresnoJoe (09-29-2015)

  5. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by njtom View Post
    But consider the case of a Christian police officer, already on the force for many years, who adopts the position that Jesus's commands regarding non-violence are to be taken literally, and that therefore he will no longer employ physical force to restrain criminals. What should happen to this police officer?

    He should be made to do a thorough bible study on the subject and change his erroneous beliefs. Jesus had no problem with the apostles carrying swords and He Himself even made a whip and used it:

    John 2
    15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to krystian For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (09-29-2015)

  7. #24
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,076
    Thanked: 5486
    Romans 13:1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Colonel For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (09-29-2015), krystian (09-03-2015)

  9. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by krystian View Post
    He should be made to do a thorough bible study on the subject and change his erroneous beliefs. Jesus had no problem with the apostles carrying swords and He Himself even made a whip and used it:

    John 2
    15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables
    I hear you, but whether you or I agree with the police officer's beliefs is secondary to the fact that the officer's beliefs are sincerely felt. Under the first amendment, the government can't define which religious beliefs are correct.

    Therefore, the newly-pacifist police officer's position is similar to that of the Kentucky clerk: Both refuse, based on sincerely-felt religious beliefs, to perform a particular aspect of their jobs.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to njtom For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (09-29-2015)

  11. #26
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,076
    Thanked: 5486
    Pacifist police officer ? That sounds like the person has an agenda when he applies for the job. Why else would he want to become a police officer ? Why not pacifist US marine ?

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Colonel For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (09-29-2015)

  13. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel View Post
    Pacifist police officer ? That sounds like the person has an agenda when he applies for the job. Why else would he want to become a police officer ? Why not pacifist US marine ?
    Colonel, you might have missed my earlier post:

    I admire the woman's steadfastness and dedication to principle. But consider the case of a Christian police officer, already on the force for many years, who adopts the position that Jesus's commands regarding non-violence are to be taken literally, and that therefore he will no longer employ physical force to restrain criminals. What should happen to this police officer? Perhaps a compromise could be reached: the officer could be re-assigned to a desk position, or to a position involving investigation of crimes rather than apprehension of criminals. Such a compromise would respect the officer's beliefs and long years of service. Perhaps a similar compromise could be reached regarding the Kentucky clerk?

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to njtom For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (09-29-2015)

  15. #28
    Senior Member Colonel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    14,076
    Thanked: 5486
    Quote Originally Posted by njtom View Post
    Colonel, you might have missed my earlier post:

    I admire the woman's steadfastness and dedication to principle. But consider the case of a Christian police officer, already on the force for many years, who adopts the position that Jesus's commands regarding non-violence are to be taken literally, and that therefore he will no longer employ physical force to restrain criminals. What should happen to this police officer? Perhaps a compromise could be reached: the officer could be re-assigned to a desk position, or to a position involving investigation of crimes rather than apprehension of criminals. Such a compromise would respect the officer's beliefs and long years of service. Perhaps a similar compromise could be reached regarding the Kentucky clerk?
    I read it originally then didn't look it up again when commenting later. The whole marriage thing depends on the definition of marriage which means that one could well view the government's current version of it as a perversion or even as something completely different. The question is if she should be allowed to do everything else than sign those papers and let someone else do the signing.
    Having a police force do its work pacifistically is impossible per default, I think the officer should probably find other employment since his new belief doesn't work with the basic concept of enforcing the law. I suppose that tells you something about what I think of pacifism when applied to a society as a whole and not just to some group who lets society do the "dirty work" for them as long as they get to stay away from it and thereby feel more righteous than the others by doing so.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Colonel For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (09-29-2015)

  17. #29
    Don't Ban me Bro! John's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    5,647
    Thanked: 4894
    It depends on what you agreed to at the time of employment.

    Most public officials swear to uphold the law and the constitution upon entering public service, creating a conundrum of sorts.

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to John For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (09-29-2015)

  19. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel View Post
    I read it originally then didn't look it up again when commenting later. The whole marriage thing depends on the definition of marriage which means that one could well view the government's current version of it as a perversion or even as something completely different. The question is if she should be allowed to do everything else than sign those papers and let someone else do the signing.
    Having a police force do its work pacifistically is impossible per default, I think the officer should probably find other employment since his new belief doesn't work with the basic concept of enforcing the law. I suppose that tells you something about what I think of pacifism when applied to a society as a whole and not just to some group who lets society do the "dirty work" for them as long as they get to stay away from it and thereby feel more righteous than the others by doing so.
    I would try to reach an accommodation in each case, if possible. Employees can be re-assigned to tasks that don't force them to violate their religious beliefs, as is done in the military with "conscientious objectors". It may be logistically messy, but it's better than forcing people to be unthinking drones who just follow orders.

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to njtom For This Useful Post:

    FresnoJoe (09-29-2015)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Has your Toyota Corolla warranty expired? Get a fast online quote from CarWarrantyUS today. Enjoy the open road and leave the repairs to us.