Persecuted Christians In America!

[Mighty AC]

When arrested, Kim Davis got exactly what she wanted. She sees herself as a martyr for religious freedom, though by that she really means Christian theocracy. Her supporters are trying to compare Davis to MLK...which is disgraceful considering he was arrested while fighting for civil rights and Kim D was arrested for opposing them.

We could use a serious injection of critical thinking...
Let's work to end the idea that faith is somehow positive or commendable.

[bush_cheney2004]

Kim Davis went to jail for what she believes in....why is that only righteous for the usual suspects ?

[On Guard for Thee]

She went to jail for breaking the law. If she didn't like the heat, she should have got out of the kitchen.

[msj]

Sure she may be a martyr to like minded people. That's the way it always is.

To the rest of us she is an elected official not conducting herself in accordance of the law of the land.

Most of us appreciate that the current law is just and she should be conducting herself in a professional manner.

In the end, as long as we continue to show just how bozo like and hypocritical these religious zealots are I think we will move to a more secular system and things will continue to improve.

[The_Squid]

At least one Democrat is being supported by Republicans! Bi-partisanship is alive and well!

[Mighty AC]

She went to jail for breaking the law. If she didn't like the heat, she should have got out of the kitchen.

Going to jail for your beliefs can, at times, be a very moral act. However, comparing one's self to MLK when your goal is to actually impede the rights of a class of people is effn' despicable.

[On Guard for Thee]

Going to jail for your beliefs can, at times, be a very moral act. However, comparing one's self to MLK when your goal is to actually impede the rights of a class of people is effn' despicable.

That was certainly a big black eye to her story especially in the context of her born again status ad what was it, 4 divorces to date? I'm sure the press will move on pretty quick from that bulls&*t story.

[Black Dog]

Kim Davis went to jail for what she believes in....why is that only righteous for the usual suspects ?

So did Timothy McVeigh.

[cybercoma]

Kim Davis can believe whatever she wants. Nobody's putting her in jail for what she believes in. She could go to the police and explain to them her exact beliefs and they would do literally nothing. Kim Davis went to jail because she violated a court order and refused to recognize the authority of the US legal system.

[Michael Hardner]

They like to make examples of people who represent the wrong side of recent moral shifts. As with the Canada Post employees who didn't feel comfortable delivering pro-life flyers, they could have just quietly moved these people to some other role. I suspect that maybe the noise-making was her doing too, though.

[cybercoma]

They like to make examples of people who represent the wrong side of recent moral shifts. As with the Canada Post employees who didn't feel comfortable delivering pro-life flyers, they could have just quietly moved these people to some other role. I suspect that maybe the noise-making was her doing too, though.

They can't quietly move her to another role. She's an elected official. She has to be impeached to be removed. If she had any convictions, she would step down from the position not being able to legally or morally do her job anymore. Instead, she's the one trying to make an example by standing up to the legal system. She has no authority to do so and justifiably she has been smacked down. In many threads, you're under the impression that religious beliefs are absolute and cannot be violated by the law and we're seeing here in one of the most religious populations of North America that this isn't the case. The law is absolute once an interpretation of the constitution is made. She has no authority as an agent for the government to go against the SCOTUS, religious convictions or not.

Edited September 15, 2015 by cybercoma

[Michael Hardner]

Ah, ok. Also I didn't realize the clerk position was elected

[Canada_First]

Going to jail for your beliefs can, at times, be a very moral act. However, comparing one's self to MLK when your goal is to actually impede the rights of a class of people is effn' despicable.

Will it be despicable when Muslims do it?

[Mighty AC]

Will it be despicable when Muslims do it?

It would be despicable for anyone, regardless of their preferred fairy tale, to defy the law and refuse to grant marriage licences based on personal beliefs.

Edited September 15, 2015 by Mighty AC

[Canada_First]

It would be despicable for anyone, regardless of their preferred fairy tale, to defy the law and refuse to grant marriage licences based on personal beliefs.

Jews should serve someone dressed in Nazi regalia saluting and shouting Seig Heil! Telling the Jew to get into the oven?

Or a black person under similar circumstances?

Just trying to see if any limits on personal beliefs.

[Mighty AC]

Jews should serve someone dressed in Nazi regalia saluting and shouting Seig Heil! Telling the Jew to get into the oven?

Or a black person under similar circumstances?

Just trying to see if any limits on personal beliefs.

In this example you have added a wrinkle to the equation that goes beyond personal belief. In this case the parties seeking a service on are not simply racists, they are also behaving in a verbally abusive manner. Not exactly an apples to apples comparison, is it?

If the clerks in your example happened to know that the parties seeking a marriage license were racists, but the behaviour of the license seekers was not abusive while requesting the document, then it should be issued. However, if anyone seeking a product or service is behaving in an abusive manner I believe employees have the right to refuse service and ask them to leave.

Edit: Typo

Edited September 15, 2015 by Mighty AC

[Canada_First]

However, if anyone seeking a product or service is behaving in an abusive manner I believe employees have the right to refuse service and ask them to leave.

Edit: Typo

Fair enough.

[Michael Hardner]

However, if anyone seeking a product or service is behaving in an abusive manner I believe employees have the right to refuse service and ask them to leave.

There are lots of grey areas though. I'm sure one could be found where the popular sentiment would be to let the employee off the hook if they weren't expressing a religious sentiment.

[Mighty AC]

There are lots of grey areas though. I'm sure one could be found where the popular sentiment would be to let the employee off the hook if they weren't expressing a religious sentiment.

Are you claiming that this is a case of Christian persecution?

[Michael Hardner]

Are you claiming that this is a case of Christian persecution?

Not in this case. She grandstanded and made this into a political big deal so it's on her as far as I can see. Even if she hadn't done that, and refused to do her job it might well be legitimate to force her to do it, especially considering legal marriage has nothing to do with Christian religious marriage.

[Mighty AC]

Not in this case. She grandstanded and made this into a political big deal so it's on her as far as I can see. Even if she hadn't done that, and refused to do her job it might well be legitimate to force her to do it, especially considering legal marriage has nothing to do with Christian religious marriage.

Interesting that you used the phrase "might well be legitimate". In your opinion, when is it acceptable for public employees to discriminate based on their beliefs? Also, do you feel that religious beliefs are more deserving of consideration than other sincerely held beliefs in cases like this?

[Michael Hardner]

Interesting that you used the phrase "might well be legitimate". In your opinion, when is it acceptable for public employees to discriminate based on their beliefs?

The question is whether they should be allowed to execute discrimination within the context of their work. The answer is 'almost never' but if it's easy for the employer to accommodate it, there's no malice meant by the employee, and there's no impact to the public then I think it *can* be ok.

Also, do you feel that religious beliefs are more deserving of consideration than other sincerely held beliefs in cases like this?

Maybe. I can't think of enough edge cases here to test my own prejudices in this regard.

[Mighty AC]

The question is whether they should be allowed to execute discrimination within the context of their work. The answer is 'almost never' but if it's easy for the employer to accommodate it, there's no malice meant by the employee, and there's no impact to the public then I think it *can* be ok.

I agree, though I also feel employers should not have to go to extraordinary lengths to accommodate employee beliefs that prevent them from doing their job. For example, the flight attendant that became a Muslim and then refused to serve alcohol. The small airline often ran into situations where the accommodation meant a reduction in service to their clients and/or an increased workload for other employees.

Maybe. I can't think of enough edge cases here to test my own prejudices in this regard.

For example, do you feel there is a difference between denying a marriage license to a gay couple based on Christian beliefs and denying a license to an interracial couple based on sincerely held, indoctrinated racist beliefs?

[Michael Hardner]

It's really hard to see your example as anything but theoretical. I can't imagine someone like that - 2nd example - working in the real world without major social issues.

[cybercoma]

In this case, her name is printed on the licenses. There's no way around it. It's on her to resign her post because she can't "in good conscience" do her job.