Clerk Defies Supreme Court, Refuses Gay Marriage Licenses

[MTL]

Would it be possible to disagree with you on this issue and not get labeled "anti-Christ" by you?

Sure, you can disagree with me without being labeled "anti-Christ" if I can disagree with you without being labeled an intolerant bigot.

 
One does not automatically equal the other.

If an Atheist takes issue with you terming them "Anti-Christ", in their beliefs,
it may well be because they are actually NOT anti-Christ, per se;
but rather something else...like, anti-Christian, which is not the same thing.

if you persist in terming them "anti-christ" in their beliefs,
despite their objections,
the onus will be upon you to illustrate how that designation is legitimate.

However,
just because they object to your calling them something they demonstrably are not,
does NOT automatically mean that you are likewise justified in objecting to them terming you an intolerant bigot,

....if, in fact, your behavior demonstrates that you ARE, in fact, an intolerant bigot.

(This ALSO does NOT mean that if an Atheist points this out fact out to you,
that they are saying that they can get away with namecalling,
and you can't.

It just means that just because the shoe fits you,
doesn't automatically means the shoe will fit us, too).

You went on to say:

" I think that for the preservation of our Constitutional right of religious liberty,
people of faith who take issue with gay marriage should be exempt from accommodating gay weddings. "

It may surprise you to learn that I don't actually object to a church or clergyman refusing to accommodate a wedding that goes against their faith, in their own church.

What I object to is Theists making objections
to gay people having the LEGAL RIGHT to get married,
even if they ARE able to find someone willing to marry them.

See the difference?

This woman was elected to do a job in a PUBLIC office....NOT A CHURCH,
and she is trying to use her religion (very disingenuously, too....given her divorce history)
to justify refusal to do her PUBLIC job,
when it entails serving citizens whose religious beliefs are not in alignment with her own.

THAT IS UNCONSCIONABLE.

AND IT IS APPALLING THAT NO CHRISTIANS HAVE HAD THE INTEGRITY TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
AND DISTANCE THEMSELVES FROM THIS WOMAN'S ACTIONS.

She took the job, knowing what it entailed,
and is now trying to abuse her position to deny LEGAL equal rights to American citizens.

Admit when you are wrong.

You also said,

" Also, I think it's time for a strong Christian political movement and lobbying effort. "

WHY??????????

I challenge you to find me a passage in the New Testament where Jesus is quoted, UNEQUIVOCALLY, as instructing his followers to go out into the world, and endeavor, specifically, to pass His teachings into Civil Lawbooks, everywhere,

with the purpose of COMPELLING non-Christians to live according to the same moral codes
that Christians CHOOSE to live by.

Do you realize that He never said anything like that?

yes, he cautioned people on the wages of sin....in eternity.

But Jesus repeatedly gave people a CHOICE of whether to follow Him, or not.

Consider the story of the rich merchant

(I'm sure you know it...but for those who don't):

It is found in the Book of Matthew.

The rich man hears that the much-talked-of Jesus is on His way into his own city,
and he is very excited to meet this man about whom he has heard so much.

He rushed to the city's gates to be among the first to greet Jesus upon His arrival.

When Jesus arrived, the rich man eagerly made his way to Christ,
and people made way for this man, for he was an important man.

The rich man greeted Jesus enthusiastically;
and he asked Jesus a question he had been very much wanting to ask:

" Teacher, what must I do to secure my seat at Your right hand, in Heaven? "

Jesus looked at the rich man and replied:

"Give away all your worldly wealth to the poor, and come and follow Me. "

The rich man considered the meaning of theses words.

He realized that Jesus was telling him that he could either remain a rich and powerful man,
OR, he could follow Jesus...but not both.

He soon turned away, sadly, and departed,
for he simply could not bring himself to just give away all he had worked so hard to accumulate,
in this life.

After he had gone, Jesus turned to his followers.

" It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle,
than it is, for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. "

The obvious moral of the story, which Jesus spoon-feeds to us,
is that you cannot serve God, and serve Money, at the same time.

But I always read a second moral in the story, in Jesus' ACTIONS, not just in His words:

When the rich man went away, having made his choice

JESUS LET HIM GO.

Jesus did NOT elect to chase after him,
dismayed that the man's choice was not what he thought it would be;

The rich man  had made his choice...

...and Jesus let him go.


but, had that been a modern-day right-wing Christian, instead of Jesus,
when the rich man turned and walked away,
the Christian would have turned red with anger,
chased after the rich man,
making promises to defeat the rich man in political and lobbying manoeuvres,

...and then had the nerve to accuse the rich man of "attacking" Christianity,
simply because he didn't choose it...

...even as he was walking away.

CHRIST NEVER TOLD HIS FOLLOWERS TO PASS HIS TEACHINGS INTO LAW.

Presumably, this is because:

A.  Jesus doesn't want people to be coerced into living a Christian life.
He can see into people's hearts and wants their choice to be sincere
and made with their whole, free will...

...not under political, social, emotional, military or economic duress.

B. God doesn't need your help.

EVERY TIME YOU MANIPULATE LAWS TO CONTROL NON-CHRISTIANS,
YOU DEMONSTRATE HOW LITTLE FAITH YOU HAVE IN GOD.

there is something particularly distasteful, IMO,
about people who claim to oppose gay marriage
OSTENSIBLY because it is out of a desire to serve God,
when it is so obvious that they are really doing it
to accommodate their own comfort level.

If I was God, I'd be pretty pissed at you for doing stuff for yourself,
and then claiming you're only doing it to serve Me.

[vorlon13]

It's difficult to be anti or pro Voltone until someone manages to find an actual real life honest to goodness flesh and blood Voltone ain't it ??

[MTL]

It's difficult to be anti or pro Voltone until someone manages to find an actual real life honest to goodness flesh and blood  Voltone ain't it ??

what?

[Redbeard The Pink]

It's difficult to be anti or pro Voltone until someone manages to find an actual real life honest to goodness flesh and blood  Voltone ain't it ??

        what?

Hang on, my Gibberish is pretty good, I run into a lot of goblins...


...he's saying that it's difficult for him to be anti-Christ when he doesn't necessarily believe a flesh-and-blood Christ existed at all.


At least that's what I think he said. Gibberish is a weird language, especially when you start mixing it with English.

[vorlon13]

Voltone was a Lost in Space reference which seemingly coincidentally sprang to mind when I read post 101.

Sorry, too much nuance again.

[MTL]

        what?

Hang on, my Gibberish is pretty good, I run into a lot of goblins...


...he's saying that it's difficult for him to be anti-Christ when he doesn't necessarily believe a flesh-and-blood Christ existed at all.


At least that's what I think he said. Gibberish is a weird language, especially when you start mixing it with English.

thanks lol

[MTL]

Voltone was a Lost in Space reference which seemingly coincidentally sprang to mind when I read post 101.

Sorry, too much nuance again.

got it, sorry, lol

[Minimalist]

Latest bullshit.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/antigay-...-licenses/

Antigay Kentucky clerk asks for emergency injunction against order to issue same-sex marriage licenses

Dear Judge,

Lock this fucking cunt up.  Forever.

[robvalue]

I wonder how long it would take her to be removed from her position if she refused to do part of her job because of her sincerely held beliefs about the FSM.

Want to take a guess? Yeah. This crap is the favouritism towards "proper" religions, and general better treatment that I want to see gone. You can't have people simply refusing to do their fucking jobs for made up reasons.

[A Theist]

Sure, you can disagree with me without being labeled "anti-Christ" if I can disagree with you without being labeled an intolerant bigot.

 
One does not automatically equal the other.

If an Atheist takes issue with you terming them "Anti-Christ", in their beliefs,
it may well be because they are actually NOT anti-Christ, per se;
but rather something else...like, anti-Christian, which is not the same thing.

if you persist in terming them "anti-christ" in their beliefs,
despite their objections,
the onus will be upon you to illustrate how that designation is legitimate.

However,
just because they object to your calling them something they demonstrably are not,
does NOT automatically mean that you are likewise justified in objecting to them terming you an intolerant bigot,

....if, in fact, your behavior demonstrates that you ARE, in fact, an intolerant bigot.

(This ALSO does NOT mean that if an Atheist points this out fact out to you,
that they are saying that they can get away with namecalling,
and you can't.

It just means that just because the shoe fits you,
doesn't automatically means the shoe will fit us, too).

You went on to say:

" I think that for the preservation of our Constitutional right of religious liberty,
people of faith who take issue with gay marriage should be exempt from accommodating gay weddings. "

It may surprise you to learn that I don't actually object to a church or clergyman refusing to accommodate a wedding that goes against their faith, in their own church.

What I object to is Theists making objections
to gay people having the LEGAL RIGHT to get married,
even if they ARE able to find someone willing to marry them.

See the difference?

This woman was elected to do a job in a PUBLIC office....NOT A CHURCH,
and she is trying to use her religion (very disingenuously, too....given her divorce history)
to justify refusal to do her PUBLIC job,
when it entails serving citizens whose religious beliefs are not in alignment with her own.

THAT IS UNCONSCIONABLE.

AND IT IS APPALLING THAT NO CHRISTIANS HAVE HAD THE INTEGRITY TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
AND DISTANCE THEMSELVES FROM THIS WOMAN'S ACTIONS.

She took the job, knowing what it entailed,
and is now trying to abuse her position to deny LEGAL equal rights to American citizens.

Admit when you are wrong.

You also said,

" Also, I think it's time for a strong Christian political movement and lobbying effort. "

WHY??????????

I challenge you to find me a passage in the New Testament where Jesus is quoted, UNEQUIVOCALLY, as instructing his followers to go out into the world, and endeavor, specifically, to pass His teachings into Civil Lawbooks, everywhere,

with the purpose of COMPELLING non-Christians to live according to the same moral codes
that Christians CHOOSE to live by.

Do you realize that He never said anything like that?

yes, he cautioned people on the wages of sin....in eternity.

But Jesus repeatedly gave people a CHOICE of whether to follow Him, or not.

Consider the story of the rich merchant

(I'm sure you know it...but for those who don't):

It is found in the Book of Matthew.

The rich man hears that the much-talked-of Jesus is on His way into his own city,
and he is very excited to meet this man about whom he has heard so much.

He rushed to the city's gates to be among the first to greet Jesus upon His arrival.

When Jesus arrived, the rich man eagerly made his way to Christ,
and people made way for this man, for he was an important man.

The rich man greeted Jesus enthusiastically;
and he asked Jesus a question he had been very much wanting to ask:

" Teacher, what must I do to secure my seat at Your right hand, in Heaven? "

Jesus looked at the rich man and replied:

"Give away all your worldly wealth to the poor, and come and follow Me. "

The rich man considered the meaning of theses words.

He realized that Jesus was telling him that he could either remain a rich and powerful man,
OR, he could follow Jesus...but not both.

He soon turned away, sadly, and departed,
for he simply could not bring himself to just give away all he had worked so hard to accumulate,
in this life.

After he had gone, Jesus turned to his followers.

" It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle,
than it is, for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. "

The obvious moral of the story, which Jesus spoon-feeds to us,
is that you cannot serve God, and serve Money, at the same time.

But I always read a second moral in the story, in Jesus' ACTIONS, not just in His words:

When the rich man went away, having made his choice

JESUS LET HIM GO.

Jesus did NOT elect to chase after him,
dismayed that the man's choice was not what he thought it would be;

The rich man  had made his choice...

...and Jesus let him go.


but, had that been a modern-day right-wing Christian, instead of Jesus,
when the rich man turned and walked away,
the Christian would have turned red with anger,
chased after the rich man,
making promises to defeat the rich man in political and lobbying manoeuvres,

...and then had the nerve to accuse the rich man of "attacking" Christianity,
simply because he didn't choose it...

...even as he was walking away.

CHRIST NEVER TOLD HIS FOLLOWERS TO PASS HIS TEACHINGS INTO LAW.

Presumably, this is because:

A.  Jesus doesn't want people to be coerced into living a Christian life.
He can see into people's hearts and wants their choice to be sincere
and made with their whole, free will...

...not under political, social, emotional, military or economic duress.

B. God doesn't need your help.

EVERY TIME YOU MANIPULATE LAWS TO CONTROL NON-CHRISTIANS,
YOU DEMONSTRATE HOW LITTLE FAITH YOU HAVE IN GOD.

there is something particularly distasteful, IMO,
about people who claim to oppose gay marriage
OSTENSIBLY because it is out of a desire to serve God,
when it is so obvious that they are really doing it
to accommodate their own comfort level.

If I was God, I'd be pretty pissed at you for doing stuff for yourself,
and then claiming you're only doing it to serve Me.

Where did I say that I took issue with atheists over this? I would wager to say that not every atheist is supportive gay of marriage, and not every atheist is politically left. My issue, all along, has been with far left radicalism and gay activism in this matter. Those of you on the far left and those in gay activist groups aren't going to be satisfied until everyone, every private business owner, and every church and religious based institution is silenced into forced submission. That's how the far left and their radical cohorts operate, undermining free speech and suppressing the voices they disagree with . My call for a strong and aggressive political Christian action group and lobbying effort is to ensure that Christians, churches, and other religious institutions are ensured protection under the Constitution to religious liberty before that's also undermined by far left radicalism.