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.
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. :rolleyes:
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. :rolleyes:
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. :rolleyes:
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.
That's it? That's all she's gotta do to be disqualified. Boy are you strict.
Quote from: Bluetick on September 02, 2015, 08:03:30 AM
That's it? That's all she's gotta do to be disqualified. Boy are you strict.
For some it was the proverbial straw, for others like me, she never had a shot.
Sure, she talks a damn good game, but make no mistake, she's full blown RINO.
Quote from: Bluetick on September 02, 2015, 08:03:30 AM
That's it? That's all she's gotta do to be disqualified. Boy are you strict.
Well, IF its her vs Hillary, shed get my vote. But that ain't gonna happen. We have other choices. Only one wlll survive. It won't be her.
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.
I had no idea she supports abortion, let alone one that late in the game. Then again part of the problem there, is that most American's think that when abortions are done. It's just a lump of cells they're getting rid of, say as you would cancer.
They don't realize that no, when they do many of them, It's a baby. With a head, heart, two arms, two legs, two eyes etc...
While I don't think Fiorina will be the candidate, I agree if it's her or Hillary, well there's really no choice.
Just as if it's Trump or Hillary there's no choice really, aside from perhaps to write your own name in, and waste a vote.
Quote from: daidalos on September 02, 2015, 12:15:21 PM
I had no idea she supports abortion, let alone one that late in the game. Then again part of the problem there, is that most American's think that when abortions are done. It's just a lump of cells they're getting rid of, say as you would cancer.
They don't realize that no, when they do many of them, It's a baby. With a head, heart, two arms, two legs, two eyes etc...
While I don't think Fiorina will be the candidate, I agree if it's her or Hillary, well there's really no choice.
Just as if it's Trump or Hillary there's no choice really, aside from perhaps to write your own name in, and waste a vote.
Exactly.
I think Trump would build The Wall (no mere fence for Trump). I also think the Mexican side would have his giant sized mug on the wall staring into the Mexico side, mocking the invaders! His ego is that big, and I'd love to see that.
Quote from: carlb on September 01, 2015, 07:03:07 PM
She's no longer an option for me.
She was an option for you?
Quote from: taxed on September 02, 2015, 03:24:29 PM
She was an option for you?
Didn't know enough about her. She was in my first tier. Not now. Like most, she's better than any Democrat, but we have other choices. THIS is the election we do some serious butt kickin'. I want a WARRIOR.
Quote from: carlb on September 02, 2015, 07:26:46 AM
CITIZENS are to resist unconstitutional laws. The principle behind theConstitution was to protect the conscience of the INDIVIDUAL.
I do agree that the law is unconstitutional. Supreme Court isn't the place to create law. When people would not vote for it in their states they took it to the Supreme Court. Still she works for a government office and the law looks like its here to stay. This government is so immoral. It isn't just that but many, many other things. We pay for sex changes, and abortion. We are all forced to participate in immoral things forced upon us by an increasing lawless world.
We know that it is going to be that way. Increasingly worse and worse. Like birth pains. A Christian should stand up for what is right. Do not condone any of it. That's all I can say.
Carly may have a point if it had been such that part of that job was issuing marriage licenses to those couples, but it was not, therefore she should not be forced to do it or lose her job. The whole thing is a power play anyway. If it were up to me they could mail in for a license and that would be their only option;/
Quote from: Boudica on September 03, 2015, 10:31:41 PM
Carly may have a point if it had been such that part of that job was issuing marriage licenses to those couples, but it was not, therefore she should not be forced to do it or lose her job. The whole thing is a power play anyway. If it were up to me they could mail in for a license and that would be their only option;/
Good point, if this was so damned important to the Fed, then they should have created a registration bank solely for Federal marriage license recognition, but we both know this had nothing to do with rights, and everything to do with killing off our Christian values and culture by Marxists.
It seems to me that everyone totally ignores the 50 year assault on Christianity here in the United States. It is also occurring World Wide. Islam is a a totally political entity. It is using some aspects of religion to excuse it's murderous genocidal policies and establishment of Sharia Law. They have well educated anti western scholars that are utilizing every legal advantage they can as means to destroy countries legal defenses. The leaders of most Western European Nations have succumbed to the legal propaganda of Islam, Obama, our own politicians and our criminally activist Supreme court are ignoring the Constitution, Federal law, State Law and the Obama Islam-ifaction of Islam.
Carly Fiorina's anti-Christian and stronly worded pro secular support of an anti-Christine position plainly states she will always be anti-Christian.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The exemption given to Hobby Lobby should have been automatically available to all Christians
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. :rolleyes:
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.
And if Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry, and the rest believed as you, we would still be singing "God Save the Queen."
Thanks goodness they did not.
The law in question is in direct violation of the Law of the Land. In short, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for government to tell a person to violate their religious beliefs or go to jail. It is further UNCONSTITUTIONAL for government to jail a person for refusing to obey an illegal order.
The ONLY ones breaking the LAW in this instance IS THE GOVERNMENT.
But I guess some here LIKE tyranny. As long as they can run around screwing like the mindless animals they have chosen to become, who cares about tyranny. Sad, pathetic creatures whose only concern is their next orgasm.
Quote from: Cyborg on September 04, 2015, 06:46:04 PM
It seems to me that everyone totally ignores the 50 year assault on Christianity here in the United States. It is also occurring World Wide. Islam is a a totally political entity. It is using some aspects of religion to excuse it's murderous genocidal policies and establishment of Sharia Law. They have well educated anti western scholars that are utilizing every legal advantage they can as means to destroy countries legal defenses. The leaders of most Western European Nations have succumbed to the legal propaganda of Islam, Obama, our own politicians and our criminally activist Supreme court are ignoring the Constitution, Federal law, State Law and the Obama Islam-ifaction of Islam.
Carly Fiorina's anti-Christian and stronly worded pro secular support of an anti-Christine position plainly states she will always be anti-Christian.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The exemption given to Hobby Lobby should have been automatically available to all Christians
Good point:
In a 1990 decision, Employment Division v. Smith, the Supreme Court ruled that religious groups were not entitled under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause to an exemption or accommodation from neutral, generally applicable laws. Amid complaints from religious groups, Congress responded by passing the RFRA in 1993. The law sought to establish by statute what had been the essence of the constitutional safeguard under the Free Exercise Clause prior to the high court's 1990 decision in the Smith case.
Instead of applying First Amendment protections in the Hobby Lobby case, the court sought to enforce the terms of RFRA.
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. :rolleyes:
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.
Gov't is supposed to stay out of religion is not exactly the intent of the separation between church and state. You have to look at why that was a concern, which is because they came from England where the church and state were one in the same and that church/state insisted on dictating the religion of all the people in it's realm. Those who did not want to be England's version of Catholic fled, and ended up here, to establish a place where every man can worship as he sees fit...or not, and the government may not tell him he can or he cannot nor tell him how and when. It was a butt out clause not a stick nose in clause.