Carly Fiorina says that while we need to passionately protect religious liberty, it is inappropriate for a Kentucky county clerk to continue to refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses against a court order, because she is a government worker.

Carly says the clerk needs to do the government's will and issue the licenses or quit and move to another job where religious liberty is more paramount

http://m.therightscoop.com/carly-ky-clerk-refusing-to-issue-same-sex-marriage-licenses-should-do-her-job-or-quit/

Do you think it would be reasonable for the county clerk
to hire a deputy to do that part of the job?

A judge in Clark County (Springfield) Ohio has said that
officiating over gay weddings would violate his conscience,
so other judges in the county have agreed to do that in his place,
if he's ever asked.

I don't agree with Fiorina but I don't think this disqualifies her.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on September 01, 2015, 07:01:14 PM
I don't agree with Fiorina but I don't think this disqualifies her.

She's no longer an option for me.

Quote from: carlb on September 01, 2015, 07:03:07 PM
She's no longer an option for me.

Fair enough.

If she were even on my radar, this would put her out.  No person should be required to compromise their religious beliefs in order to work for government. Any government that makes such a requirement loses all legitimacy, as any legitimate government recognizes that God comes first in all things.

Quote from: zewazir on September 01, 2015, 07:25:21 PM
If she were even on my radar, this would put her out.  No person should be required to compromise their religious beliefs in order to work for government. Any government that makes such a requirement loses all legitimacy, as any legitimate government recognizes that God comes first in all things.

Really is that so? So then which God do we recognize? Last I checked our Constitution our Government is supposed to stay out of religion period. Sure says that in my copy of the First Amendment. Maybe you have an updated one that says Governmental officials get to pick and choose which religions/Gods they will recognize and will not. Mine however doesn't.

Like it or not, as the law stands now, this clerk is Breaking the law. She claims Christianity, yet out the other sides of her mouth says she'll just go on breaking the law. Yet the very God she claims, specifically stated that his followers are NOT to do that.

Any governmental employee, who is going to presume to use their office to enforce their own personal religious views on the citizens. Violates the first amendment. Period. Someone who breaks their oath of office, as well as who fails to uphold the first amendment in Government, has zero business in a government job ever.

Oh I forgot, the law is only something to be upheld and applied when it suit's our own political agenda/point of view.

If it doesn't it's just A-ok to ignore, and, in the case of this "clerk" break it. 

With the Scotus rejecting this Clerks case, and then the full court rejecting her further "appeal" when she lost the initial case. Like it or not, establishe's that if she continues after that, to refuse to do so. She is breaking the law. Period.

That's the great thing about our nation.

If we don't like the way the law is we are absolutely free. In large part due to the same first amendment this clerk is violating.

Go out and lobby Congress to amend the Constitution so we can recognize in government this or that set god/religious set of rules. Are the one's we are all going to go by.

And lobby the Congress to change the law. That is the correct, Godly, "Christian" thing to do.

Not simply dig one's heels in and refuse to obey the law as this clerk has done. And as everyone who supports her, is now endorsing.

Quote from: daidalos on September 01, 2015, 08:17:47 PM
Really is that so? So then which God do we recognize? Last I checked our Constitution our Government is supposed to stay out of religion period. Sure says that in my copy of the First Amendment. Maybe you have an updated one that says Governmental officials get to pick and choose which religions/Gods they will recognize and will not. Mine however doesn't.

Like it or not, as the law stands now, this clerk is Breaking the law. She claims Christianity, yet out the other sides of her mouth says she'll just go on breaking the law. Yet the very God she claims, specifically stated that his followers are NOT to do that.

Any governmental employee, who is going to presume to use their office to enforce their own personal religious views on the citizens. Violates the first amendment. Period. Someone who breaks their oath of office, as well as who fails to uphold the first amendment in Government, has zero business in a government job ever.

Oh I forgot, the law is only something to be upheld and applied when it suit's our own political agenda/point of view.

If it doesn't it's just A-ok to ignore, and, in the case of this "clerk" break it. 

With the Scotus rejecting this Clerks case, and then the full court rejecting her further "appeal" when she lost the initial case. Like it or not, establishe's that if she continues after that, to refuse to do so. She is breaking the law. Period.

That's the great thing about our nation.

If we don't like the way the law is we are absolutely free. In large part due to the same first amendment this clerk is violating.

Go out and lobby Congress to amend the Constitution so we can recognize in government this or that set god/religious set of rules. Are the one's we are all going to go by.

And lobby the Congress to change the law. That is the correct, Godly, "Christian" thing to do.

Not simply dig one's heels in and refuse to obey the law as this clerk has done. And as everyone who supports her, is now endorsing.

Well as much as I hate gay "marriage daidalos  is right.  We are in the world but not of it. 
We are not to judge the world God is the judge.  It is our job to consider how we live and what we think.  Consider this scripture

First Corinthians 1:18-20 says:

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.' Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

1 Corinthians 5 also talks about our responsibility as Christians to steer clear of immorality but not to judge the world.

The world does not live by Gods Word.  We can vote against things like gay marriage, which isn't even a real thing if you ask me.  But if the law is made it is made.  We don't condone it, but we have to follow the law.  I certainly dislike it. 

Unfortunately this clerk is in a position where she may feel that she is involved and that is where she needs to pray and be sensitive to where God leads.  She may have to quit her job.  There are many jobs that put Christians in positions to do things contrary to their faith.

Now another thing about Carly Fiorina.  She supports abortion until 20 weeks.  Correct me if I am wrong but that is late term abortion.  5 months.  I think that is murder.   

This is just like chapel...

Quote from: Chosen Daughter on September 01, 2015, 09:14:30 PM
Well as much as I hate gay "marriage daidalos  is right.  We are in the world but not of it. 
We are not to judge the world God is the judge.  It is our job to consider how we live and what we think.  Consider this scripture

First Corinthians 1:18-20 says:

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.' Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

1 Corinthians 5 also talks about our responsibility as Christians to steer clear of immorality but not to judge the world.

The world does not live by Gods Word.  We can vote against things like gay marriage, which isn't even a real thing if you ask me.  But if the law is made it is made.  We don't condone it, but we have to follow the law.  I certainly dislike it. 

Unfortunately this clerk is in a position where she may feel that she is involved and that is where she needs to pray and be sensitive to where God leads.  She may have to quit her job.  There are many jobs that put Christians in positions to do things contrary to their faith.

Now another thing about Carly Fiorina.  She supports abortion until 20 weeks.  Correct me if I am wrong but that is late term abortion.  5 months.  I think that is murder.   

Sorry, no. You're right, the LAW is the Law. Peter tells you who you must obey when Man's law conflicts with THE Law.

Also, the principles on which this nation was founded side with this woman. It is only because this nation has abandoned God as the TRUE Lawgiver that there's even any argument.

I do dnt know that was her stance on abortion STRIKE TWO!

But really, it doesn't even matter. I kecsomeone else said, she's not even on my radar.

Quote from: daidalos on September 01, 2015, 08:17:47 PM
Really is that so? So then which God do we recognize? Last I checked our Constitution our Government is supposed to stay out of religion period. Sure says that in my copy of the First Amendment. Maybe you have an updated one that says Governmental officials get to pick and choose which religions/Gods they will recognize and will not. Mine however doesn't.

Like it or not, as the law stands now, this clerk is Breaking the law. She claims Christianity, yet out the other sides of her mouth says she'll just go on breaking the law. Yet the very God she claims, specifically stated that his followers are NOT to do that.

Any governmental employee, who is going to presume to use their office to enforce their own personal religious views on the citizens. Violates the first amendment. Period. Someone who breaks their oath of office, as well as who fails to uphold the first amendment in Government, has zero business in a government job ever.

Oh I forgot, the law is only something to be upheld and applied when it suit's our own political agenda/point of view.

If it doesn't it's just A-ok to ignore, and, in the case of this "clerk" break it. 

With the Scotus rejecting this Clerks case, and then the full court rejecting her further "appeal" when she lost the initial case. Like it or not, establishe's that if she continues after that, to refuse to do so. She is breaking the law. Period.

That's the great thing about our nation.

If we don't like the way the law is we are absolutely free. In large part due to the same first amendment this clerk is violating.

Go out and lobby Congress to amend the Constitution so we can recognize in government this or that set god/religious set of rules. Are the one's we are all going to go by.

And lobby the Congress to change the law. That is the correct, Godly, "Christian" thing to do.

Not simply dig one's heels in and refuse to obey the law as this clerk has done. And as everyone who supports her, is now endorsing.

At what point do we draw the line? How about pedophilia, or govt directed marriage, where your children are matched with a suitor at birth, when do you personally put a gun to the head of the almighty govt and say enough is enough?
I believe the woman is not only well within her First Amendment Rights, it's incumbent upon all of us to stand with her.

Read the First and tell me who's in the wrong, her, or the govt.

Quote from: Solar on September 02, 2015, 04:11:58 AM
At what point do we draw the line? How about pedophilia, or govt directed marriage, where your children are matched with a suitor at birth, when do you personally put a gun to the head of the almighty govt and say enough is enough?
I believe the woman is not only well within her First Amendment Rights, it's incumbent upon all of us to stand with her.

Read the First and tell me who's in the wrong, her, or the govt.

You are right, solar.

It is government who has trespassed into the religious domain.  "Civil Unions" would have avoided this conflict.  The government can initiate "civil" actions but does not have the right to redefine a religious rite.

Once they get their foot into the door of Biblical interpretation, there is no stopping them.

Government did not invent marriage.  It has always been a religious rite.  Government must keep their hands off of religion.

Quote from: kroz on September 02, 2015, 05:10:49 AM
You are right, solar.

It is government who has trespassed into the religious domain.  "Civil Unions" would have avoided this conflict.  The government can initiate "civil" actions but does not have the right to redefine a religious rite.

Once they get their foot into the door of Biblical interpretation, there is no stopping them.

Government did not invent marriage.  It has always been a religious rite.  Government must keep their hands off of religion.

Couldn't agree more.

We have a president who doesn't enforce the laws he doesn't like either.

We complain about tht all the time.  Do we live in a country where you only obey the laws you like, or do you try to get the law changed? 

Quote from: Dori on September 02, 2015, 07:15:12 AM
We have a president who doesn't enforce the laws he doesn't like either.

We complain about tht all the time.  Do we live in a country where you only obey the laws you like, or do you try to get the law changed?

CITIZENS are to resist unconstitutional laws. The principle behind theConstitution was to protect the conscience of the INDIVIDUAL.